Oppenheimer - 我的飛鳥集

Disclaimer

This article does not discuss any political views. Its content is limited to the film Oppenheimer itself and the historical facts it involves. This article contains some spoilers, so please read with discretion if you haven't seen the film yet. May the world know peace.

Main Text

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” — The Bhagavad Gita

In the 1950s, the success of the Manhattan Project heralded humanity's official entry into a new era of atomic energy. The first use of atomic energy by humankind was the “atomic bomb” created by the Manhattan Project. The film Oppenheimer tells the story of the birth of the atomic bomb and of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. At “181 minutes,” it's the longest film I've personally watched (though Avengers: Endgame is actually one minute longer), and it left me with profound thoughts.

It's not a traditional American-style individual hero film (think Marvel). It's a film that sings loudly of peace and reality. Of course, this is partly because it's a film “based on true events.” While we all know Oppenheimer created the atomic bomb and is therefore called its father, we also know the bomb wasn't the work of Oppenheimer alone, but the masterpiece of all the physicists, mathematicians, and chemists of that era. They are the ones who led humanity into the atomic age. Oppenheimer was a polymath, and only such a cross-disciplinary mind could connect all the historical research and complete a task spanning mathematics, physics, chemistry, and the military.

I think we should be grateful that the scientists who created the atomic bomb had enough conscience. As Oppenheimer's quoted Sanskrit verse suggests, and as he told Truman, “We scientists have blood on our hands.” The success of the bomb made the brightest stars in the history of physics begin to question their own research. Looking back from our vantage point in history, these scientists—especially those led by Oppenheimer—vigorously opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb and the further weaponization of atomic energy. Even Einstein, who had originally written to Roosevelt urging the start of the Manhattan Project, more or less tried to prevent terrible things from happening.

Speaking of Einstein, one can't help but marvel that in that era, as the world's top physicist, he had no real rival except Bohr. There's a scene in the film where Oppenheimer seeks Einstein's help to solve a potential risk with the atomic bomb, but Einstein doesn't lend a hand. As for why, it involves some rather interesting stories. Clearly, Oppenheimer favored the Copenhagen interpretation, otherwise he wouldn't have repeatedly sought to meet Bohr. Of course, beyond that, I think Einstein also believed Oppenheimer could solve the problem himself. Still, it's truly remarkable that even Oppenheimer, hailed as the father of the atomic bomb, along with so many other brilliant physicists, had to live in Einstein's shadow and seek his academic help. It's a testament to how unshakeable Einstein's standing in physics was.

We won't evaluate the impact of these scientists' efforts to stop further development after creating the bomb. Instead, I want to look at them from another angle, especially Oppenheimer himself. In the film, Lewis Strauss, played by Robert Downey Jr., is something of a villain. But his words are thought-provoking. The question we need to consider is: after saving the world once by becoming the father of the atomic bomb, did Oppenheimer then play the role of someone opposing further weaponization of atomic energy, trying to become a savior once again? To put it bluntly, it smacks of a certain hypocrisy. But we can't know if that's what he truly thought. Yet, thinking about it from the perspective of the scientific spirit, I believe Strauss's view is profoundly wrong. His understanding of physics is shallow. He doesn't embody the scientific spirit; he embodies something rather appalling. Science should be borderless. Our purpose in developing science is to live and thrive better, not to destroy life or the very right to exist. Perhaps that's what Oppenheimer believed—but that's just my speculation.

After the bomb's detonation, the film gives Oppenheimer many deeply meaningful shots that reveal his complex inner turmoil. He has accepted the title of father of the atomic bomb, but he seems unable to accept such a tremendous sacrifice.

In terms of narrative technique, the film uses a cross-cutting, non-linear structure. This approach makes a relatively simple historical story somewhat “brain-burning,” but it also makes a film that might otherwise feel dull more engaging. I think it's a good literary narrative device, though in literature it might need to be toned down to avoid a sense of fragmentation in the overall work.

Throughout the film, scenes involving Lewis Strauss, or those depicting things unfavorable to Oppenheimer, are shot in black and white, while most others are in color. This makes the film quite interesting. In most modern works, black-and-white footage is used to depict the past or to create a specific aesthetic that highlights certain features for greater impact. Of course, if the latter is the intent, it's usually in shorter short films, not typically in commercial features like this. Nolan's choice here is refreshing. What's his purpose in using black and white? It's a good question. Some believe the black-and-white scenes represent an objective, third-person perspective, while the color scenes tell Oppenheimer's legendary story. That interpretation is quite convincing. My friend studying film directing at the Beijing Film Academy shares a similar view—that it's about viewing Oppenheimer's actions from a second perspective.

Technically, we all know the film was shot on IMAX film cameras, which makes its presentation in IMAX theaters far superior to most so-called IMAX films. The visuals are stunning. The reason I say “so-called” is that many of those films weren't actually shot with IMAX cameras. For example, The Wandering Earth 2 and Creation of the Gods were both released in IMAX theaters, but their images are cropped, so the IMAX experience isn't as impressive as it could be. Of course, while their visuals can't match Oppenheimer, their sound performs very well in IMAX theaters. That's partly because achieving good sound is less difficult, and regular film cameras are much easier to handle than IMAX cameras.

As we know, if full-frame is the standard, converting the focal length of a “crop sensor” to its full-frame equivalent requires multiplying by a number greater than 1. For instance, Sony's APS-C format requires a multiplier of about 1.5 to get the full-frame equivalent focal length. A 50mm lens on APS-C effectively behaves like a 75mm lens, which results in significant cropping of the image. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for beginners, as it makes composition easier. However, many people choose full-frame to get a wider field of view at the same focal length (different focal lengths serve different purposes, but I won't go into that here). For the film industry, a smaller sensor can make composition easier and save on set-building costs, but the result on the big screen would be a mess, and performance in certain scenes would be poor. That's why filmmakers choose full-frame cameras. IMAX cameras, however, do the opposite: to convert to full-frame equivalent, you multiply by a number less than 1. This means that with the same 50mm lens, the amount of image captured is IMAX > full-frame > crop sensor. That's why IMAX films can deliver better visuals. Of course, this effect only appears in IMAX theaters with IMAX's specific screen aspect ratio. Films not shot with IMAX cameras are very difficult, if not nearly impossible, to post-produce to match the same effect.

This film is first-rate both in content and technique. It scored 8.6 on Douban, which is a bit lower than Nolan's own Interstellar and Inception. That's because the story is simply the legendary tale of the father of the atomic bomb, nothing more. It doesn't offer the same kind of spectacle those two films gave audiences, and the non-linear narrative can be quite taxing, leaving some viewers confused. Some people don't like its length, as a “181-minute” story can feel a bit drawn out. And of course, some simply don't care for Oppenheimer's story itself.

Overall, this film is excellent. It's thought-provoking, visually stunning, and even champions the spirit of the times. A film from across the ocean with such a high level of awareness is truly commendable.

Overwhelming power can be used to protect, or it can be used to destroy.